[marron]

but nobody's allowed to mass-market it the way, say, Marlboro would.

My main concerns about legalization are mass-marketing, drug use as a criteria for receiving disability payments(you can't work due to drug use, therefor you are disabled), and the US being drawn into guaranteeing the purity of the product.

What are your thoughts?

[WyldKard]

What are your thoughts?

I personally don't think pot is any worse than alcohol or tobacco. I would regulate it in the exact same way. Put whatever warning lables that you want. (Something like: Hey dummy! Putting burning vegitation smoke in your lungs can be harmful!!). This is far from my ideal situation, merely the "most realitic" one.

A compromise would be a coffeehouse solution. But unlike the Dutch, you need to take the production and supply out of the black market.

As for those hard drugs, those "Rare white powders". Frankly, I wouldn't shed many tears if they stayed illegal. Once again, not the ideal solution, but one perhaps a bit more realitic.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

My main concerns about legalization are mass-marketing, drug use as a criteria for receiving disability payments(you can't work due to drug use, therefor you are disabled), and the US being drawn into guaranteeing the purity of the product.

The mass marketing thing worries me, too, because of the purity of the product. I'd hate to see something happen along the lines of cigarettes---that the mass marketer adds other things to the standard Mk 1, Mod 0 joint in order to make it "more addictive" or create some sort of brand loyalty.

I would not, under any sort of circumstances, subscribe to the notion that drug use entitles you to any sort of disability payment at all. That is a flat-out recipe for disaster.

Basically, I think the Amsterdam Model works just fine. Only licensed, registered coffeeshop-sized enterprises can sell it, and private citizens can grow it and consume it privately.